,
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES `A' MUMBAI
[ .. , Û è . , è
BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
. / ITA No.1788/MUM/2013
[ [ /Assessment Year 2006-07
Mrs. Anita S. Katara, / The ITO-19(3)(1),
1205-C Wing, Raheja 3rd Floor, Piramal Chambers,
Vs.
Sherwood, Lalbaug, Parel,
Near NSE Grounds, Mumbai 400063
Goregaon (East),
Mumbai 400063
è . / . / PAN/GIR No. : AHBPK0947N
( /Appellant) .. (× / Respondent)
Appellant by Ms. Mrugakshi K. Joshi
Respondent by Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya
/ Da te o f Hearing : 08/06/2015
/Date of Pronouncement : 08/06/2015
/ O R D E R
PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee and it is directed against order
passed by Ld. CIT(A) -18, Mumbai dated11.01.2013 for assessment year 2006-
07. Grounds of appeal read as under:
"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law:
1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied by the learned
Assessing Officer of Rs.3,67,985/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961, in
respect of disallowance of genuine gifts received by the Assessee from her sister,
under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The impugned penalty has been levied on the addition of Rs.7,90,000/-
and Rs.1,55,000/-, which were added to the income of the assessee being
unexplained cash credit.
2 . / ITA No.1788/MUM/2013
[ [ /Assessment Year 2006-07
3. During the course of hearing, it was brought to our notice that the
impugned addition on which the penalty has been levied was set aside by the
Tribunal to the file of AO vide order dated 21/2/2012 in ITA
No.3294/Mum/2011 with the following observations:
3. We have considered the issue and are of the opinion that the matter is to be re-
examined by the Assessing Officer afresh. The contention that the provisions of
section 56(1)(v) regarding the amount received from the relative was not there
before Revenue authorities. Moreover it is to be established that the person who
gifted money is assessee's sister as claimed. It was also to be established that
the said sister is working as Dentist in U.K. The audit certificate placed before the
CIT (A) with reference to the creditworthiness should have been admitted and
examined by the CIT (A) which was not done. Therefore, without going to the
merits of various claims, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to
consider the additional evidence filed before the CIT (A) and also examine other
contentions afresh. The assessee is directed to furnish the necessary evidence to
the Assessing Officer to substantiate the claims. Needless to state that adequate
opportunity should be given to assessee in the consequential assessment
proceedings. With these directions the issue of gift is restored to the file of the
Assessing Officer to examine afresh on the basis of facts and law.
4. It was further brought to our notice that in pursuance to aforementioned order
of the Tribunal, the AO has considered this issue and after examining the evidence
submitted by the assessee addition has been deleted and returned income of the
assessee has been accepted. Reference in this regard was made to order passed by AO
dated 30/11/2012, copy of which was placed on our record and was also given to Ld.
DR.
5. In this view of the situation, after hearing both the parties we delete the
impugned penalty and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08/06/2015
Û 08/06/2015
Sd/- Sd/-
(. / D.KARUNAKARA RAO) (.. / I.P. BANSAL)
è / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Û è / JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai;
Dated 08/06/2015
3 . / ITA No.1788/MUM/2013
[ [ /Assessment Year 2006-07
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. × / The Respondent.
3. È() / The CIT(A)-
4. / CIT
È
5. , , / DR, ITAT,
Mumbai
6. [ / Guard file.
/ BY ORDER,
× //True Copy//
/ (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
, / ITAT, Mumbai
.../Vm, Sr. PS